Ten years of auto parts tariff problems still exist

Ten years after joining the WTO, the great changes in the Chinese auto industry and the market are obvious to all. One of the most worthwhile books is Jetta, which was a 14-thousand-year-old car 10 years ago. Although it is now undergoing upgrades, it will cost as much as 80,000 yuan, plus the inflation factor, and the cost of car purchases will drop drastically. The people can afford cars. This was primarily due to the opening up of the market after China's accession to the WTO (in fact, it was only semi-open, the auto parts tariffs were still not low, and the foreign-invested equity ratio of vehicle joint ventures was still not to exceed 50%). The “wolf” had come and no Chery was given. The legal permits of Geely and the Geely people cannot be justified. The people and the horses compete with each other. The government no longer "limits" the car, and the car price does not fall. However, some people disagreed with the achievements of the accession to the WTO. They talked about "complete failure of the market for technology," "China's auto industry is not as developed as South Korea," and "China is a big automobile country, but it is not a car power." It advocates mandatory "introduction of technology and protection of the market." The approval of vehicle joint ventures will no longer be approved, and foreign-investment access to auto parts companies will also be restricted, limiting the "monopoly" of foreign investment in the sales of imported vehicles and even in the rating of automobiles. These claims, which are obviously suspected of violating the basic principle of non-discriminatory national treatment of the WTO, all stem from some of our backward and narrow concepts that are incompatible with modern commercial civilization.

We are constantly complaining about the "conservative" and "selfishness" of transnational corporations in technology transfer. This is because we have never looked at the transfer of technology from the perspective of modern commercial game rules, and rationally viewed it as a reason that should be a matter of wishful thinking. The win-win deal, but wishful thinking of multinational companies in the transfer of technology to go up well, actually forgot the church apprentice starved to death master, fertilizer is not flowing outside the field is our own old tradition, but also never empathize, think about If someone wants you to transfer technology, what would you do? Once disappointed, they became furious and accused transnational corporations of their unwillingness to see the strength of their Chinese joint venture partners as their competitors and their technical blockade against China. They concluded that: Therefore, China must work hard to develop its own core technologies. According to this logic, if a multinational company does not impose a technical blockade on China, China will not have to work hard to develop its own core technology.

We always talk about the Japanese and South Korean models and talk about the development of aerospace and home appliances. We don't talk about the differences between the international political and economic environment in which Japan and South Korea lived and their own political and economic system and today’s China. The characteristics and laws of automobile development and production itself, accusing the company of indifferent development, preferring to use simple emotional logic to draw an inspirational pie, rather than calm down, and use complex and scientific attitudes to deal with complex things. Conduct the analysis. As a result, it is necessary to “curve overtaking” at every turn, and to engage in the “Great Leap Forward” of self-owned brands and electric vehicles. Although the cost is huge and the tuition fees are extremely high, it is ultimately impossible to find the North.

We are tempted to criticize multinational corporations for monopolizing in China and unrealistically treat multinational corporations as monolithic. We believe that transnational corporations must work together to annihilate China’s own brands and dominate China’s market, with Chinese and foreign investment in competition and monopoly issues. In fact, the line does not even understand the meaning of competition and monopoly.

We call on the government to restrict the establishment of new vehicle joint ventures, impose additional technology transfer conditions on new foreign investment projects, impose restrictions on the ratio of foreign-invested shares of parts and components companies, and stipulate that the number of self-owned brand cars in government procurement must reach a certain percentage, always thinking that this is in China. We Can do whatever they want, what the basic principles of TWO national treatment, and what international business rules of the game, all clouds, fear of what we are powerful, who dared to sue us, to retaliate against it. If you do this, even if you get it for the time being, you will end up losing a lot of money, and you will have a bad reputation.

It seems that for 10 years after joining the WTO, we have made little progress in our ideas. If the above problems are only individual phenomena, they will not hinder the overall situation. Unfortunately, they are often flickered into the mainstream public opinion and deeply affect the government's relevant decisions. Since China's accession to the WTO, the biggest scourge of China's auto industry has been its indomitable impetuosity. The main problem behind it is the use of emotional logic to replace complicated political and economic logic. These concepts are related to this. Emotionally speaking, Chinese people all hope that their countries and enterprises will win the competition and maximise their own interests, but only by excluding those backward and narrow concepts, excluding irrational disturbances and pressing the scientific concept of development emphasized by the Central Government, Respect the development laws of the automotive market, enterprises and technology, grasp the rules of global commercial games, rationally weigh the pros and cons of all parties involved in the game, and properly resolve the tariff problems of auto parts in order to find the correct long-term sustainable development direction or model. Reduce the cost between them.